Anachronistic Views May Kill New Trek Series From The Start

[VulcanJedi]

Star Trek is not our future, and never has been our future, any more than Star Trek's past was our past, because it never has been. It's a separate reality like Middle Earth, with its own history.

So quit trying to shoehorn Star Trek's history into ours, and vice versa. Doesn't work, never has, never will.

good point! Let's face it then; it is fantasy. A fantasy world more than a science fiction world.

 

[VulcanJedi]

delete

 

[JarodRussell]

Its Spock. He knows the difference between a timeline that needs fixing and one that's an separate reality. How??? HE'S SPOCK!!!!!!

The actual Spock would know that. This Spock needed a tiny drop of Red Matter to cause a black hole able to vacu suck a galaxy threatening FTL super nova () and brought an entire ball with him.

 

[T'Girl]

^ I've considered that the outer part of the red matter ball is useless, it's the rind of the fruit. Only the goo in the very center is any good.

When Spock needed some of the red matter, he didn't simply collect some of it off of the surface of the ball, instead he punctured it and extracted material from the interior.

.

 

[Kemaiku]

As did Nero, it looks like Red Matter is physically like a resin, in this case a very thick rubbery hide and a more viscious inner goop.

 

[Harken]

Actually the sovereign debt crisis in the Euro zone is caused a) by the socialization of public debts aka bail-outs during the financial crisis,

Would not have been as big of a problem if poor countries like Greece, Italy and Ireland were not part of the EU. I am not saying the problem would not exist but if the EU was limited to countries closer to France and Germany's economic strength it wouldn't be as bad.

b) a pseudo gold standard inside Europe which makes it impossible for European countries to conduct an independent monetary policy which would enable them to devaluate their currency to get out of deep sh*t and

Which would not be a problem at all if the EU didn't exist at all.

c) the unwillingness of the ECB to play the same role as the Fed, be a lender of last resort.

I agree with you here.

Such institutional mistakes have nothing with "uniting countries that never should have been united in the first place."

The "mistakes" would not have been able to happen if Eurocrats were not pushing for a united Europe in the first place. I used quotation marks on mistakes because I am not convinced they are, especially when it comes to forcing the public to pay of debt. Eurocrats are trying to erode the middle class intentionally.

 

[horatio83]

So you want poor countries to stay out of the European currency union yet you complain about policies that destroy the middle-class? Sounds like a very narrow form of solidarity ...

Ireland is not a poor country, its per capita GDP is about as high as that of France and Germany. Greece is the only European country which did not manage its public finances prudently whereas Ireland and Spain had very low levels of public debt before the crisis, they are basically neoliberal players. Their public debt rose because of the bail-outs during the financial crisis, not because they spent too much. Austerity does not solve the problem but intensify it.

The European project is not wrong just because the current European elites repeat the mistakes of the thirties. Or do you seriously believe that petty nationalism is the way forward? To unite Europe makes sense from a leftish-utopian "no more war" plus solidarity perspective and it makes sense from a Kissingerian Realpolitik point of view. Just take a look at demographic developments in the East. I rather want a united Europe in a world where billions of Chinese and Indian folks compete with us.

 

[MacLeod]

Actually the sovereign debt crisis in the Euro zone is caused a) by the socialization of public debts aka bail-outs during the financial crisis,

Would not have been as big of a problem if poor countries like Greece, Italy and Ireland were not part of the EU. I am not saying the problem would not exist but if the EU was limited to countries closer to France and Germany's economic strength it wouldn't be as bad.

b) a pseudo gold standard inside Europe which makes it impossible for European countries to conduct an independent monetary policy which would enable them to devaluate their currency to get out of deep sh*t and

Which would not be a problem at all if the EU didn't exist at all.

c) the unwillingness of the ECB to play the same role as the Fed, be a lender of last resort.

I agree with you here.

Such institutional mistakes have nothing with "uniting countries that never should have been united in the first place."

The "mistakes" would not have been able to happen if Eurocrats were not pushing for a united Europe in the first place. I used quotation marks on mistakes because I am not convinced they are, especially when it comes to forcing the public to pay of debt. Eurocrats are trying to erode the middle class intentionally.

The EU is not the same as the Eurozone, the EU refers to the 27 nations that make up the EU, the Eurozone refers to those 12 countries which have monetary union. And yes some of the problems within the Eurozone are to do with divergent economic policies within the seperate member states that make up the Eurozone. If countries A-J need a higher interest rate and countries K & L need a lower one, the one that most countries need will be favoured. One way reasonable way to avert this would be to have even closer economic ties with a single political entity setting economic policy for all member states. That is still a long way off.

After all most of the time when the peoples of the EU vote on a treaty they reject it, only to be asked to vote on it again until they give the correct answer.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Why has this become a TNZ thread? Whether or not the EU is going to survive is beside the point. Star Trek can be viewed and appreciated as what-if science fiction. What-if people could get over their petty divisions and have a united Earth*?

That's no different, really, than what-if we had FTL travel and transporters to beam our atoms all over the frak, and there's a planet around every corner that looks like California populated by humans with funny foreheads and ears.

Even if none of this ever happens for real (and I'm not sure what part sounds the least plausible), it's still a valid and interesting basis for fiction.

*And Star Trek's answer is, it wouldn't matter, because then humans would leave Earth and go out into the cosmos looking for new people to fight with.